Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
On 03/23/2013 05:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: I had already suggested boundary=planning to SemanticTourist. Boundary=civil is rather ambiguous. In my eyes the boundary tag serves to differentiate which hierarchy the area belongs to. For example boundary=police might serve for police force jurisdictions, with different values of admin_level for force areas and districts (not sure exactly how they are organised). NP's don't have an admin function in the sense of a separate body to administer them, they are just documents with a legal status which are owned by (and binding on) certain bodies. There might also be Traffic Plans, Landscaping Plans etc etc. According to Wikipedia: In England the local planning authorities are 32 London borough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_borough councils, 36 metropolitan borough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_borough councils, 201 non-metropolitan district http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-metropolitan_district councils, 55 unitary authority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_authorities_of_England councils, the City of London Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London_Corporation and the Council of the Isles of Scilly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_Isles_of_Scilly. Neighbourhood Plans are for subareas of the LPAs. Colin Boundary=planning would seem to be the obvious tag to use. Since neighbourhood plans will exist for some parts of the country but not for many others other tags such as admin with or without an admin level seem wrong to me. Seems pretty unclear how long-lived these plans and planning areas will turn out to be. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
The NP areas do have some kind of individual raison d'etre because the parish/town council areas are only used as a starting point. They can exclude parts of their area if they wish, and by agreement with adjoining authorities, include additional areas from neighbouring parishes where that makes sense for planning purposes. For example (all in Mid Sussex district, West Sussex), Lindfield and Lindfield Rural have a shared NP, an amalgamation of two parish councils; and Ansty Staplefield has donated an urbanised part of its territory to Horsham. Colin On 2013-03-24 14:28, SomeoneElse wrote: Colin Smale wrote: What do others think? Thanks for the heads-up. This sort of import is exactly the sort of thing that should have been discussed on this list first. As I read it (from https://www.gov.uk/neighbourhood-planning [1] ) boundaries are only really going to be relevant in unparished areas where a neighbourhood plan is established - elsewhere it looks like existing parish and town coucils will do (actually in fact are already doing) this. Links: -- [1] https://www.gov.uk/neighbourhood-planning ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up... User SemanticTourist has been very busy recently with Neighbourhood Plan areas, particularly in East/West Sussex, Kent and central England. He has been adding them to the map in a way that IMHO is not compatible with current practice. Note that Neighbourhood Plan areas are often coincident with civil parishes, as the parish council is invited to make its own NP. However this is not always the case. The parish can exclude parts of its area from the NP area, and can cooperate with adjacent parishes to trade areas in order to make more sense from a planning perspective. In addition, NPs can be set up for non-parished areas by suitable bodies as determined by the main local authority. I make the following observations: 1) He uses a single way (with common nodes on common boundaries with adjacent areas) for a complete boundary instead of boundary relations and a shared way 2) Tagging the way with boundary=administrative, admin_level=10 despite the fact that they do not represent an area of local government 3) There appears to be something not quite right with the projection of his boundaries as they are displaced by several metres with respect to existing boundaries In spite of promises made in email exchanges he is continuing to work in this way. As far as I am concerned it's fine to add NP areas to OSM, but not as boundary=administrative with an admin_level as this overloads the way parish/community areas are tagged at present. We were getting closer and closer to complete coverage of admin areas in the UK but this is just spoiling it. What do others think? Colin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
Colin, On 23 March 2013 14:24, Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl wrote: Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up... User SemanticTourist has been very busy recently with Neighbourhood Plan areas, particularly in East/West Sussex, Kent and central England. He has been adding them to the map in a way that IMHO is not compatible with current practice... I noticed these uploads in the SW. I tried to find some mention of them on the imports page without success and I don't remember reading anything on the lists. There is something fairly unhelpful about them in the wiki. What use are they exactly? Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
Thinking about how to code them, maybe boundary=civil would be acceptable. Somebody could probably form an argument for boundary=Administrative, as they do have an admin function, but they would need to be different from the Civil Parish. Jason (UniEagle) -Original Message- From: Colin Smale Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:24 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning Just wanted to give everyone a heads-up... User SemanticTourist has been very busy recently with Neighbourhood Plan areas, particularly in East/West Sussex, Kent and central England. He has been adding them to the map in a way that IMHO is not compatible with current practice. Note that Neighbourhood Plan areas are often coincident with civil parishes, as the parish council is invited to make its own NP. However this is not always the case. The parish can exclude parts of its area from the NP area, and can cooperate with adjacent parishes to trade areas in order to make more sense from a planning perspective. In addition, NPs can be set up for non-parished areas by suitable bodies as determined by the main local authority. I make the following observations: 1) He uses a single way (with common nodes on common boundaries with adjacent areas) for a complete boundary instead of boundary relations and a shared way 2) Tagging the way with boundary=administrative, admin_level=10 despite the fact that they do not represent an area of local government 3) There appears to be something not quite right with the projection of his boundaries as they are displaced by several metres with respect to existing boundaries In spite of promises made in email exchanges he is continuing to work in this way. As far as I am concerned it's fine to add NP areas to OSM, but not as boundary=administrative with an admin_level as this overloads the way parish/community areas are tagged at present. We were getting closer and closer to complete coverage of admin areas in the UK but this is just spoiling it. What do others think? Colin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Possible Boundary Vandalism Warning
On Sat, 2013-03-23 at 18:28 +0100, Colin Smale wrote: I had already suggested boundary=planning to SemanticTourist. Boundary=civil is rather ambiguous. In my eyes the boundary tag serves to differentiate which hierarchy the area belongs to. For example boundary=police might serve for police force jurisdictions, with different values of admin_level for force areas and districts (not sure exactly how they are organised). NP's don't have an admin function in the sense of a separate body to administer them, they are just documents with a legal status which are owned by (and binding on) certain bodies. There might also be Traffic Plans, Landscaping Plans etc etc. I spotted these whilst looking through local changes. To be honest it was the word 'Neighbourhood' that started alarm bells ringing. I have only heard Americans talk about the neighbourhood they grew up in or live in. But it appears to be true. He has added a boundary for Ercall Magna, that follows the existing Telford and Wrekin/Shropshire boundary, but not quite. I am sure it should be the same, it does appear to break things. I do wonder what the point of this sort of information is? How does it make a better map? Phil (trigpoint) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
